HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT

It will come as no surprise that we at CasablancaPA take great delight whenever Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's frequent boneheaded moves create a minor media stir.

As you can imagine, his mind-boggling declaration that Pennsylvanians would rather collect unemployment than work was music to our ears. Pleasantly, his gaffe was reported by all the major news outlets in the state, including the Inquirer, the Post-Gazette, the Morning Call, the Patriot-News, WDUQ, and of course the outlet that broke the story, WITF.

Similarly, Corbett's failed attempt to use a grand jury subpoena to expose a couple of anonymous online critics tickled us pink. Even better, that gaffe was picked up by major national media outlets, including The New York Times, USA Today, Wired magazine, Politico, Talking Points Memo and TechCrunch.

What makes us weep into our whiskey down at the Blue Parrot are all of Corbett's boneheaded moves that gather little or no media attention. For example, not a single news outlet pointed out that Corbett's refusal to recuse himself from investigating political supporters (Or this one. Or this one.) directly contradicted his howls of indignation four years earlier over his opponent's much less significant lapse.

The secret meeting between investigation target John Perzel and Corbet and his campaign manager, and the Corbett fund-raiser hosted by target Brian Preski was reported in precisely one newspaper.

The Daily News was also the sole outlet to report on Corbett's appalling use of state agents to intimidate a legislator who criticized him.

And only one newspaper and one television station have reported on the hundreds of phone calls Corbett's state-paid staff exchanged on their state phones during state time with Corbett's campaign workers. (Neither managed to get even a well-crafted lie out of Corbett in his own defense).

Even though both the Patriot-News and Tribune-Review reported that House Republican computers were replaced mid-investigation with Corbett's knowledge and permission, neither they nor any other news outlet seemed to recall that salient fact when Corbett nearly blew a gasket over all that missing evidence. Nor did anyone seem to remember John Morganelli's all-too-true prediction, which earned him only the threat of a lawsuit from the now-curiously-quiet Sam Smith.

While the mountain of evidence linking Bill DeWeese to Bonusgate is well-documented, guess how many outlets have questioned why (or even noticed that) DeWeese escaped indictment in the case? That's right: Zip. Zero. Nada.

Corbett's comments about the unemployed reveal that he's ignorant. And his Twitter subpoena reveals that he's a thin-skinned bully. But his lesser-noticed blunders reveal something far more dangerous than an ignorant, thin-skinned bully.

THESE ARE NOT THE DROIDS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR

Cognitive dissonance.

It's reached epidemic proportions among the political press. It may even have affected a journalist you know.

For example, according to grand jury presentments, the House Republicans' alleged scheme to divert millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to political activity supposedly began just after the 2000 elections. The House Democrats' alleged plot to reward political volunteerism with taxpayer-funded bonuses supposedly kicked into gear during the 2004 election cycle.

Even according to the Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett, House Republicans had been unfairly and illegally kicking House Democrats' asses for four years before Mike Manzo and Scott Brubaker came up with an equally-illegal plan to help the Democrats level the playing field.

But even though the Democrats' alleged illegal scheme was much smaller in scale and was initiated four years later, it's somehow portrayed as having given the Democratic candidates a wildly unfair advantage over Republican candidates.

Witness the Post-Gazette's hilariously melodramatic (and shockingly misleading) account of plucky underdog Jim Marshall, whose earnest supporters rolled meatballs and hand-addressed fund-raising letters from Marshall's home-based headquarters. Not a word did reporter Tracie Mauriello write - was she even aware? - of the blizzard of professionally-produced television ads, robo-calls and slick direct mail that swept through the district in the final weeks of the campaign, all funded through the state Republican committee.

Apparently Mauriello will believe anything she's told as long as it reflects poorly on Mike Veon. She didn't even bother to check Marshall's campaign finance reports, which reveal more than $150,000 in funding from the state party. And that's just the support that was legally reported. If Corbett's allegations against Perzel are true, a virtual army of taxpayer-funded House Republican staffers were using millions in taxpayer-funded resources to support Marshall and other Republican candidates.

If you want to try to set up a David vs. Goliath analogy, you kind of need someone to play the role of David, and there's no suitable candidate in this situation. It's not an "advantage" if both sides are cheating.

The Tribune-Review's Brad Bumsted chimes in, characterizing the bonus scheme - for which even he admits "Veon didn't write the script," as a direct result of Veon's "unquenched thirst for more power." Bumsted's been covering the legislature for a long time; he must know that when the bonus scheme which Veon didn't concoct was launched, the Democrats had virtually no power in the legislature. At that point, according to Corbett, the Democrats were being victimized by a multi-million-dollar taxpayer-funded Republican campaign blitzkrieg.

For that matter, Bumsted places responsibility for the scandal on Veon because Veon "signed off on it" as the "de facto leader of the House Democratic Caucus." But it was Bumsted himself who first revealed that the actual leader of the House Democratic Caucus - the only one who had the legal authority to disburse caucus funds - was well aware of the scheme. Yet somehow DeWeese never faced charges in connection with it, and Bumsted apparently has no problem with that?

How can you help combat cognitive dissonance among political reporters? Just a few seconds of critical thought a day could mean the difference between substantive analyzis and mindless rhetoric. Please, take the time to care.

AGAIN WITH THE PHONES?

It must be witchcraft, the spell that Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett casts upon reporters during interviews that renders them incapable of recalling contradictory statements he's made in the past.

Again, today, in an interview with Pittsburgh's KDKA, Corbett yammered on about how he carries one phone for state work one phone for campaign work.

"I carry two Blackberries. I left one out in the car so it wouldn't go off [during the interview]. The other one is sitting over on the side table over there, and I can go back and forth between the two at any time."

For those of you keeping track, this back-and-forth, does-he-or-doesn't-he, why-can't-he-keep-his-story-straight ridiculousness started in September, with Corbett bragging to ABC27 News that he carries two cell phones:

"He says he has a separate BlackBerry for his campaign work and one for his 'work' work. Separation of government and campaigning is big with this attorney general." (Stop, you're killing us.)

But when ABC 27 confronted him with cell phone bills that showed calls between Corbett's sacred campaign-only phone and state workers on state phones during state time, he claimed, "It's easier to keep it on one."

Then why did you claim that you use two? (A journalist might have asked, if one could have been found.)

He had no defense, we remind you, for the hundreds of calls between those state workers (on state phones during state time), the state staff of Republican legislators (on state phones during state time), and the cell phones of his campaign staff. Not that he needs a defense, apparently, when no one dares to question anything he does.

In November, in response to a question from Associated Press reporter Mark Scolforo, Corbett again claimed he uses his "personal" cell phone (the one his campaign is paying for) for both state and campaign business, and he doesn't even know the number of his state-issued cell phone. (Again, no one bothered to ask why he changed his story.)

But he must have remembered the number by January, when he was back to bragging about his double-fisted technology. On WITF-FM on Jan. 7, Corbett said technology - "cell phones, BlackBerries" - allows him to simultaneously prosecute members of the legislature while seeking their support for his gubernatorial campaign. "I carry two, by the way," he said. (But he doesn't know the number of one of them, which he claims he never uses, except when he does.)

Then, in a February interview with the Patriot-News, Corbett's team went back to claiming he uses only one cell phone. "If anything, [Deputy Attorney General Marc Costanzo] said, Corbett is saving the taxpayers money by not using his state phone." (Remember? He doesn't even know the number!)

By now Corbett may have settled on sticking with the two-phones story, since it's been pointed out to him (you'd think he'd have known it before) that using his campaign-paid phone for anything other than campaigning is a violation of campaign finance and reporting laws.

Good thing for him nobody noticed. Or ever notices. Anything.

BIRDS GOTTA FLY, FISH GOTTA SWIM

The Pennsylvania political establishment seemed nonplussed and even a bit bemused by Republican Congressional candidate Patrick Meehan's awkward attempt to link his opponent to the Bonusgate scandal.

Our response? Well, duh. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and Republican candidates for office in Pennsylvania gotta tie their opponents to Bonusgate. It's just the natural order.

The scandal's entire raison d'être is so Republican candidates could sputter with feigned outrage. Meehan just happens not to be very good at it.

We pointed this out more than a year ago. While attempts to link Democratic candidates to Bonusgate failed to regain control of the House for the Republicans, they did manage to knock off five Democratic candidates using Bonusgate smears.

Why mess with success?

Even better news for Republicans, Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett should be announcing even more indictments just in time for Election Day.

Democrats can't say they weren't warned, though. But their fear of being targeted by Corbett's investigation kept them silent as Corbett crafted the ultimate campaign issue.

And it's so efficient, too! It slices, it dices, it works for state House candidates, state Senate candidates, Congressional candidates, Gubernatorial candidates, and tough stains ordinary political scandals won't budge.

"CORBETT IS LAUGHING AT YOU"

We're not surprised by the halfhearted coverage of the hearing on a Bonusgate defendant's  motion for a modified sentence.

We are surprised, however, that the letters written by the jurors who acquitted the defendant of 39 criminal counts continue to be ignored.

We imagine its because the jurors' comments raise inconvenient questions for Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett, and we all know what happens when Corbett faces inconvenient questions.

The 800-pound gorilla in the courtroom: why did Corbett strike deals with the masterminds in order to secure testimony against "such a small part of the issue that he probably should not have been in that courtroom?"

Were you waiting for the Capitol press corps to ask? Silly!

At the risk Corbett will send the goon squad to the secret CasablancaPA bunker (deep in the catacombs under the Capitol), allow us to point out some inconvenient facts.

Long before Corbett struck any deals with the vast majority of his informants, and long before anyone was indicted, one defendant was on record calling Corbett's investigation a "witch hunt." Does anyone underestimate the impression that comment made on the notoriously thin-skinned Corbett eight months before the indictments? Before, in fact, most of the witnesses ever glimpsed a grand jury.

But wait, there's more. (You knew that, didn't you?) Corbett was obsessed with anonymous criticism (which he blamed on one particular defendent) long before he used a sentencing hearing as an excuse to subpoena Twitter for his critics' identities ... long before the defendant was acquitted of 93% of the charges against him .... long before Corbett started publicly attacking the defendant as an anonymous online critic ... and long before anyone agreed to a plea deal. (Really? Yes, really.)

Buried deep within the transcript of Corbett's six-and-an-half-hour deposition in Thomas Kimmett's whistleblower lawsuit is a glimpse into Corbett's long-running obsession with anonymous criticism.

Q: Do you have any idea who operates the e-mail Corbett Is Laughing At You?
A: Oh, I have some ideas, but I'm not going to go into it right now while the trial is going on, but it's one of the defendants (Ha! "I'm not going to say, but I'll just say it." How cagey!)
(snip)
Q: Okay. This e-mail from, I'll just refer to it as Corbett Is Laughing at You for lack of further identification.
A: Um-hum.
Q: [Campaign manger] Brian Nutt got that from Joe Gertis, and then Brian Nutt forwarded it to Kevin Harley, William Ryan, Richard Sheetz and Annmarie Kaiser. Do you know who Richard Sheetz is?
A: Yes.
Q: Who is Richard Sheetz?
A: He's the head of my Criminal Division.
Q: Okay.
A: And I assume he forwarded it because letting us know what's out there concerning the investigation.
Q: He who forwarded it is Brian Nutt.
A: Right.
Q: He's sending it to these people like Bill Ryan, Kevin Harley, Richard Sheetz, Ms. Kaiser who didn't, who weren't paid members of the campaign.
A: No, they were members of the office.
Q: Right. Anyone other than Ms. Kaiser that you know of volunteer on the campaign?
A: Kevin would.
Q: Kevin was a volunteer on the campaign?
A: Kevin was a volunteer. I don't know that Bill really volunteered at all. He might've showed up at events or something. Rick, earlier today you asked me about people contributing. Rick and Bill more than likely contributed to the campaign. I don't know that they really did any volunteer work.
Q: Okay. You said your understanding is that Mr. Nutt would've forwarded this because it had to do with the then on-going investigation.
A: That's right. Somebody really doesn't like me, do they?
Q: I'm betting based on your position it's more than one person out there.
A: Oh, yes. On both sides of the aisle.
Q: Do you have any understanding why Annmarie Kaiser would respond with, "not good?"

So, what we have here is an email conversation among Corbett campaign staff and state OAG staff concerning a criticism of Corbett that was disconcerting enough that at least one staffer labeled it "not good." (Do these really strike you as people who take criticism in stride?) And you have Corbett admitting that he believed the author of this disconcerting criticism was someone whom he prosecuted.

The email in question was widely distributed among legislators, staff and Capitol press in September 2008, weeks before Corbett's pre-election show-hearing, before plea deals were struck. Whatever do you suppose the Corbett campaign team found "not good" about it?

MIKE MANZO: PROFESSIONAL WITNESS

Because Mike Manzo was such a stellar witness in the Bonusgate scandal - creating such a bad impression on the jury that he made the defendants sympathetic in comparison - Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett is using him to create an entirely new campaign issue.

What will our clever media corps dub this developing scandal? GamingGate? SlotsGate? LicenseGate? Can they get through this without using the -gate suffix? We're not optimistic.

We find it fascinating that Democrat Manzo appears to be the star witness in yet another grand jury investigation - particularly if Corbett is, as rumors indicate, investigating events that occurred when Republicans controlled both legislative chambers. As with the Bonusgate investigation, Corbett will find it necessary to sacrifice a token Republican or two for the appearance of non-partisanship. But we won't be surprised if he finds a way to lay whatever impropriety he manages to conjure squarely at the feet of the then-minority Democrats.

The timing of the leak published in the Morning Call today fits perfectly the Bonusgate pattern. Look for indictments in midsummer, in order to allow for a three-ring-circus of a preliminary hearing just weeks before Election Day. Then, hilariously, Corbett will solemnly declare a moratorium on further arrests before Election Day, and the press will pee in its collective pants over his magnanimous gesture.

As for us, we just can't wait to see what embarrasing story Manzo comes up with the next time he gets caught in a lie on the witness stand.

"A MINIMAL PART OF THE ISSUE"

Taken together, the message of the grand jury that issued a campaign document on legislative reform for Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett, and of the jurors who acquitted Team Veon of most of the charges against them, is this:

Corbett could have indicted almost anyone in the legislature, and chose to indict someone who "was such a small part of the issue that he probably should not even have been in that courtroom."

As usual, the eternally unanswered question is: why?

Reporters who covered the grand jury report on reform - an improper use of the grand jury, by the way - delighted in relating Judge Barry Fuedale's observation that grand jurors were "mad as hell" to hear from numerous witnesses that "no one's guilty because everybody does it."

These same reporters fail to point out that even though "everybody does it," Corbett's original Bonusgate indictments included only a single sitting legislator, who wasn't even a member of leadership.

“It struck me that the grand jury was sending a message to the attorney general that ‘We’re not really happy because everyone does this and why are you picking these people?’” ACLU legal director Vic Walczak told the Patriot-News.

Why, indeed?

Because of the typically shallow media coverage of all things Bonusgate, the general public knows only that "two jurors agree" that the first sentence handed down to a Bonusgate defendant was "extremely harsh."

But the letters that accompanied the defendant's motion to have his sentence reduced tell a different tale. Both letters indicated that the jury asked Judge Richard A. Lewis "for leniency to those we convicted." Why?

"...we stressed how much we felt that the defendants were a minimal part of the issue and that those who accepted pleas and immunity were more to blame," the juror wrote.

So, not only did Corbett indict someone who "probably should not have been in the courtroom," he struck deals with those who "were more to blame" in order to secure their testimony against him.

These are the conclusions of jurors who were spoon-fed nothing but specially-formulated Corbett Chow for weeks on end.

Again, the question is why? Attorney Bryan Walk said during a sentencing hearing for his client Brett Cott that he tried to talk to the Attorney General's Office about a deal, but the prosecutors refused. They offered deals to those who were "more to blame" in order to convict "a minimal part of the issue."

As we have allowed before, perhaps we are witnessing a sophisticated legal strategy that is beyond our feeble comprehension. Or perhaps Tom Corbett has led the most spectacularly inept prosecution in legal history. During the trial, Harrisburg lawyers repeatedly dropped by the Bonusgate courtroom to see if the rumors they were hearing about the case were true.

Who knows what would have happened if Corbett had offered Cott a deal? Perhaps he would have scored better than a 16% conviction rate. Perhaps not. But we'll never know, and we'll probably never know why.

"MORE THAN CHILLING"

While the Twittersphere has been abuzz with outrage over Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's use of a grand jury subpoena to unmask anonymous critics, legal experts have even graver concerns.

Questions regarding Corbett's motive still abounded, but it was his use of a grand jury for a purpose other than securing an indictment that proved even more chilling for some people. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania further described as "completely inappropriate" a cover letter that accompanied the subpoena sent to Twitter.

The cover letter, signed by the investigating grand jury's executive secretary, asked that Twitter not reveal the existence of the subpoena.

"It's more than chilling," said Vic Walczak, the ACLU's legal director. "If I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I'm not going to say 'boo' to anybody, even though I have a right to do so."

Very few of us are constitutional lawyers - or lawyers at all, a fact that Corbett's office relies upon as it drags people before a grand jury for any reason that strikes Corbett's whim.

Most people won't ignore a subpoena. (Most people who aren't cabinet officials.) Most people assume that a subpoena from the highest-ranking law official in the state is legitimate. Most people assume the questions they're being asked in a grand jury are in the furtherance of a legitimate investigative purpose.

Investigating grand juries are for investigating crimes. The jurors, not being lawyers, may not be expected to know this. But surely the esteemed Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may be expected to know this.

Or not: "...deputy attorneys general the ACLU talked with during the Twitter affair had a reaction of, 'We do this all the time. What's the problem?'" Walczak told the Legal Intelligencer.

We do this all the time? What's the problem?

"I hope somebody is going to look into whether this is a legitimate use of law enforcement authority," said Sam Bayard, the assistant director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

Bayard clearly hasn't spent much time in Pennsylvania, where journalistic curiosity and political courage are in severely short supply.

FORE!

Just as we suspected.

Unless we're missing something, every media outlet that covered the preliminary hearing for John Perzel & company missed the most interesting element of the story.

This may be the first time in state history a prosecutor takes a defendant to trial on accusations of destroying evidence after the prosecutor himself opened the door for that destruction.

Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett belatedly brought about a billion charges against Team Perzel, after the political reality finally dawned on him. But the accusations of obstruction fascinate us most - and most offend Corbett himself: "Obstruction's the worst," he huffed at the press conference to announce the billion charges.

Corbett's like a golfer that accidentally drives a ball toward your head, screams "fore!" and then gives you "two for flinching."

It's not just that Corbett gave the House Republican eight months advance notice that he might come nosing around the caucus to see if they left anything incriminating lying around. He explicitly green-lighted the replacement of the computers where that incriminating evidence might reside.

As the Patriot-News reported, "all GOP desktop computers were replaced from July 17 to Sept. 6 [2007] at the Capitol." And, as the Tribune-Review reported, "The attorney general's investigators were consulted about the changeover of computers."

Unfortunately for both Corbett and caucus staff - but only one (rank-and-file) lawmaker - Corbett later decided he was going to need the data on those computers after all. Because Capitolwire was suggesting Corbett's political ties to the Republican legislature might inhibit the investigation. And The Morning Call was calling for an independent prosecutor.

Why would Corbett allow the caucus to ditch its computers in the middle of a criminal investigation? Or meet, along with his campaign manager, with a major target? Or allow another target to host a fund-raiser?

And what kind of investigation was it, anyway, if after nearly a year Corbett didn't have enough facts, or understand where the investigation was going?

Given Corbett's urge to throw people in jail if he even thinks they're asking inconvenient questions, it's unlikely the public will get answers. Even if someone did work up the nerve, he'd probably just duck back into his sofa fort of grand jury secrecy. Lord knows what those OAG party animals are hiding behind that veil. We already know they were improperly using the grand jury to gather information for a sentencing hearing. For all we know, Corbett could be having the jurors filling out his tax return, or washing his cars. Or working in his gubernatorial campaign. Oh, wait, that's right: we already know about that.

SIMPLY AWESOME

THE GREATEST DANGER OF ABUSE....

"If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies."

-- Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson.

COWBOY UP, PATRIOT-NEWS

We are endlessly amused by the timidity of the Patriot-News editorial board.

But by running for governor while continuing as attorney general during a time of unprecedented scandal investigations, more and more people are concerned there is at the very least a perception that some decisions are political. (Patriot-News, 5/23/10)

"Oh, we're not saying he's abusing his office. But we can see why others might think that."

Cowboy up, wimps, and call a spade a spade. You know, it's okay to disapprove of Corbett's tactics. It doesn't mean you approve of anything he's accused other people of doing.

Public discourse is not a hockey game. You don't have to pick one side or another. You're allowed to see the abuses on both sides.

But really; this part is downright ignorant:

We support Attorney General Tom Corbett’s efforts to fight corruption in Harrisburg and have applauded the charges he has brought against high-ranking elected officials and their staff.

Really? High-ranking elected officials? The highest-ranking elected official Corbett originally indicted was a sophomore rank-and-filer (who was acquitted on all charges). Only a fool would believe his indictments of Bill DeWeese and Steve Stetler (who wasn't an elected official at all when he was indicted, much less a high-ranking one) were anything but damage control.

Both were indicted only after newspapers exposed the evidence Corbett had overlooked. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 6/19/09) (Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/6/09)

When Corbett finally realized political expediency required that he indict some Republicans, he chose as the sole target among elected officials another rank-and-filer, whose reputation was indelibly stained with the unpopular pay raise vote of 2005. Not a member of leadership, and certainly not someone who held influence in the legislature any longer, despite the lingering aura of his former position.

Corbett has quite carefully chosen not to indict any "high-ranking elected officials." He's going to need them in his debt when he's elected governor.

ONLY CRIMINALS CARE ABOUT INTEGRITY

Let's just suppose, for argument's sake, that our li'l ol' blog here were being written by a "contrite" defendant. Would his contrition blind him to Tom Corbett's behavior?

Would a contrite defendant not wonder why e-mails and testimony exposing Bill DeWeese's involvement in bonuses, "LCOMM" and the Nader and Romanelli petition challenges didn't lead Corbett to indict DeWeese in connection with bonuses, "LCOMM" and the Nader and Romanelli petition challenges. Mario Cattabiani and Angela Couloumbis of the Philadelphia Inquirer wondered, and we're pretty sure no one's indicted them. (Yet.)

Would a defendant's contrition change the fact that Corbett didn't subpoena House Republicans until at least eight months into his well-publicized, leaky-as-a-sieve investigation, and only after after critical editorials appeared on Capitolwire and in The Morning Call? That he and his campaign manager met secretly with John Perzel just weeks before the subpoenas were issued? Or that Corbett himself green-lighted a computer changeover months before issuing the subpoenas? The reporters who noted these curious facts are not convicted felons. (Yet.)

Would a contrite defendant fail to notice that Corbett sent agents from the Attorney General's office to intimidate a state representative who criticized him in a newspaper article? Chris Brennan of the Philadelphia Daily News noticed, and he's not a criminal defendant. (Yet.)

And we suppose nobody but a unrepentant defendant would wonder how Corbett's investigation of the Senate Republicans failed to uncover the campaign operation Jane Orie allegedly ran out of her district office? Laura Vecsey of the Patriot-News wonders, and Corbett hasn't charged her with a felony. (Yet.)

The hundreds of phone calls between Corbett's state staff, on state phones during state time, and campaign workers on their campaign-paid phones, would be of no interest to a contrite defendant? Matt Kemeney of the Patriot-News seems interested, and he's neither a contrite nor unrepentant convict. (Yet.)

If Corbett thinks its okay to put his critics in jail as long as he's convicted them of a real crime first, how short a slide is it to pursuing criminal charges against people because they are critics? Keep in mind, Brett Cott was on record calling Corbett's investigation a "witch hunt" nine months before he was arrested, and a month before Bill DeWeese fired him.

We are outraged, of course, by Corbett's attempt to learn the identity of a critic in order to punish the critic with jail time. But we are baffled by his argument that anything on this blog demonstrates a "lack of contrition." Does contrition make you stupid?

Thanks again to "TN2010" for the illustration.

MESSAGE TO BONUSGATE DEFENDANTS

The harsh sentence of the first defendant in the Bonusgate case is meant to send a message - not to any state workers out there who might be thinking of sending an e-mail on the taxypayer dime, but to the defendants who are awaiting trial.

The message is this: don't exercise your right to a trial before a jury of your peers. Say whatever Tom Corbett wants you to say. Admit to whatever Tom Corbett wants you to admit. Spare him the embarrassment of sending his inept prosecutors to court, where you stand a very good chance of being acquitted of most or all of the charges against you.

The judge really does not want to sit through another one of Tom Corbett's incompetent, six-week dog-and-pony shows, and he would really like you to spare him that.

The thing is, if you go to trial, Tom Corbett will have to show you the evidence against you. And he would probably prefer to keep that evidence to himself. After all, that evidence might reveal something like, oh, say, his main collaborator against you is actually a ringleader in the crimes for which you're being prosecuted. (And also that the collaborator is a total whack-job.) It might expose how he overlooked evidence against other people and then he might have to go back and indict them, too, just to save face. He may even have to come up with a whole different case against some of them, because something is keeping him from charging them in the matters for which you yourselves are indicted.

And all of that would be awfully inconvenient and time-consuming for him. He's got a lot on his plate, what with running for governor and all.

Look, Bonusgate defendants: chances are pretty good that Tom Corbett's going to be Governor. You don't want to make him mad. Look at what he does with the power he has as Attorney General. Dragging people in front of a grand jury for any old reason he feels like. No telling what he might do as governor.

Message: Be afraid. Give in. Give up. Submit. Shut up. It's what Tom Corbett wants.

CORBETT ADMITS HE WANTED JAIL TIME FOR BLOG CRITIC

We hope you find Tom Corbett's rationalization of his outrageous subpoena to Twitter as appalling as we do.
It boils down to this: "Yes, it's true I sought the identity of my anonymous critic so I could punish him with prison time, but only if it's this one particular guy."
We're pretty sure they covered the First Amendment at Tom Corbett's law school, but let's clarify something for him: criticism of a public official - even anonymous criticism of a public official - is not punishable by law. Not even if the anonymous critic is some guy you managed to convict of a couple of felonies.
It's been clear for more than a year that Tom Corbett and his minions have been hell-bent on proving his anonymous critics are defendants in a criminal case.
Be warned, Pennsylvania: It's a very short leap from "He's only criticizing me because he's a criminal defendant," to "He's only a criminal defendant because he's criticizing me.
Please support the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

NICE CAMPAIGN WORK, GENIUSES

Apparently Team Corbett is too bloated to hide behind grand jury secrecy any longer. (Try cutting back on the salt, guys.) "We can't comment on an ongoing investigation (except when we feel like it)" just doesn't cut the mustard in the Show.

And we are most definitely in the Show. The New York Times, USA Today, the Washington Post Politico, Wired, even Keith Olbermann have taken an interest in the little assault on free speech we've got goin' on up here in Pennsyltucky.

(If you want to hear Signor Ferrari's incredibly sexy electronically-distorted voice, visit KDKA and WTAE)

Finally called upon to justify Tom Corbett's attempt to unmask his online critics, mouthpiece Kevin Harley brilliantly hinted the subpoena is related to today's sentencing hearing for a Bonusgate defendant.

As the kids say, O RLY? "Using the grand-jury process to get evidence in the aid of sentencing is an abuse of the system. Grand juries are to investigate potential crimes, not aid in prosecution," says Witold Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania (a total rock star and our new personal hero).

Um...what was it that subpoena said again? "You are ordered to appear as a witness ... to give evidence regarding alleged violations of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."

Even if the blogger did turn out to be Corbett's favorite whipping boy, unless exercising free speech anonymously on the internet is now a violation of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that subpoena seems a bit, well, misleading.

Not everyone is buying this sentencing spin. As Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News asks, "if he's going after one guy, why go after two Twitter accounts?" Attorney Bryan Walk says his client is being used as a smokescreen and the real motive behind the subpoena is to stifle dissent.

But let's set aside the blatant violation of the First Amendment. Let's set aside the abuse of the grand jury system. Let's set aside the inveracity of the subpoena itself.

Let's indulge Team Corbett in their little fantasy. Let's say Twitter complies (quietly!) with the subpoena. Let's say the information Twitter divulges somehow definitively proves Signor Ferarri is who Corbett believes he is.

ACLU law professor Eugene Volokh mused to the New York Times that "if [the defendant] turned out to be one of the commenters," perhaps his online comments might "be at odds with a claim of contrition at sentencing."

Was this their plan? To use a grand jury subpoena to solicit information they might get to use in case a defendant were to make a statement in the future that contradicts a statement on a blog that they suspect he writes?

If it weren't so chilling from a civil liberties perspective, you'd have to admit it's pretty hilarious. Clearly, they're watching too many Law & Order reruns (the histrionic later episodes, not the Jerry Orbach classics). You just know they were fantasizing about a grand dramatic moment when they leap up and yell, "that's not what you said on your BLOG, sir!"

C'mon. That's funny.

Even granting the possibility of this truly bizarre scenario - and that is a stretch - exactly what statement on this blog might contradict any "statements of contrition?" After the dramatic Law & Order moment, what were they going to say? What statement were they going to cite?

As we said yesterday, for all their obsession with this blog, they're not reading it too carefully.

Special thanks to our new friend "TN2010" for the lovely illustration on today's post. We think the Corbett campaign should consider using it as a poster or maybe a direct mail piece.

MAYBE THEY SHOULD TRY READING IT BEFORE SHUTTING IT DOWN

Considering how obsessed Tom Corbett and his minions appear to be with our li'l ol' blog here, it doesn't appear that they (or the people they pay to do their reading for them) have actually read this blog very carefully. (Or they do and have just chosen to lie about it. It's always so hard to figure out whether they're being ignorant or deliberately malicious.)

Set aside the fact that their presentencing report for one of the Bonusgate defendants actually asserts that a defendant they suspect of "maligning the prosecution" should be penalized for this criticism.

Seriously.

But what really chaps our blogger asses is the entirely false claim that the defendant has (they think) used the blog to "defect blame and deny responsibility for his criminal conduct."

We issue a challenge to friend and foe: Find one post on this blog which fits that description.

This blog has a simple mission, which is clearly stated at the top of the page and which we humble contributors take very seriously: exposing the hypocrisy of Tom Corbett.

Yes, we have pointed out that Tom Corbett has failed to investigate numerous instances of conduct identical to the conduct for which he prosecuted Democratic staffers (and one sitting legislator, who was acquitted.)

Yes, we've pointed out that Tom Corbett himself has engaged in practices for which he has prosecuted others.

Yes, we have pointed out that Tom Corbett's failure to investigate House Republicans from the start - despite his repeated claims that he was doing so - resulted in the disappearance of evidence he later whined about. (Despite the fact that he himself okayed the disposal of computers)

Yes, we've accused Tom Corbett of using his office to intimidate critics.

Yes, we have pointed out that Tom Corbett's own staffers exchanged hundreds of phone calls on state time, using state phones, with campaign workers who had no legitimate business with the state.

Yes, we have pointed out that Tom Corbett attacked his primary opponent in 2004 for failing to recuse himself from an investigation involving a campaign supporter, while defiantly refusing to recuse himself from an investigation involving dozens upon dozens of his own campaign supporters.

Yes, we have pointed out the absurdity of Tom Corbett's refusal to indict Bill DeWeese in connection with bonuses, "LCOMM" and the Nader and Romanelli petition challenges.

Yes, we have called attention to the other political cronies who have escaped criminal prosecution due to their close ties to Tom Corbett.

And yes, we have called into question why Tom Corbett's "investigation" of Senate Republicans did not uncover the overt political operation Jane Orie allegedly ran out of her district office.

We're the first to admit, as the Morning Call's John Micek says today, we've "spent the last year or so being a bee in Tom Corbett's bonnet."

But "deflect blame" and "deny responsibility?" Sorry, we've got bigger fish to fry and no one else seems willing to step up to the fire.

TWEEP: "I'M SPARTACUS"

It's certainly been an interesting day here at CasablancaPA. We made so many new friends! Since last night, the number of followers on our Twitter feed has more than quadrupled (and counting!), and traffic on this li'l ol' blog increased almost seven-fold.

Thanks to all our new tech-savvy friends, we learned the term for this phenomenon is the Streisand Effect.

Tom Corbett's obsession with CasablancaPA is nothing new. More than a year ago, his minions prodded Tribune-Review columnist Eric Heyl into idle speculation about the identity of the bloggers.

A few months later, he insinuated to the Associated Press not only that he knew the identity of at least one blogger, but that said blogger was "making stuff up." (Slander!)

But for all his bluster, it appears that he is not as sure as he wants us all to think he is, and wanted to go into court on Friday with solid proof (which he doesn't have) that someone's been blogging mean things about him, and someone should serve a long jail term because of it.

Seriously. They said that. That someone should serve a "a sentence far stiffer" than his convictions warrant because he's "used an anonymous blog" to "malign the prosecution." Or, at least, they think he has. A prosecutor in the United States of America asserts that someone should serve time because the prosecutor thinks (but doesn't know for sure) that someone is maligning the prosecutor.

(Speaking of maligning a prosecutor, check out these Tweets!)

Anyway, a million thanks to all our new Tweeps. We love you! Our favorite Tweet of the day, from the stalwart Grabngo: "I'm Spartacus."

You rock!

CORBETT LOOKING FOR IDENTITY OF ANONYMOUS CRITICS

CasablancaPA today received notice that Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett has subpoenaed Twitter for identifying information about our Twitter account.

It is unknown whether Blogger has received a similar subpoena; we have received no such notice.

The subpoena for Twitter can be found here.

GUARD! SILENCE HIM!

Gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett had an awkward encounter at his campaign stop in the Lehigh Valley yesterday.

According to the blog "Repatriot Radio," Corbett exploded at a man who asked about the federal lawsuit Corbett finds himself currently embroiled, specifically a possible federal investigation into the activities surrounding Corbett's Financial Enforcement Section:

"Anyway I asked the question Mr Corbett if you win tomorrow how will you handle your campaign and your subsequent Federal trial for alleged fraud in the Attorney Generals office. Tom Corbett got so irate he came off the platform through the crowd and confronted me to my face on the issue. All he said was that the info I was referring to was fraudulent and put out by the Sam Rohrer campaign. He shook his finger in my face and told me to go back to Sam and get my facts straight."(Repatriot Radio 5/17/10)

This isn't surprising. Corbett is known for his short temper. However, it is troubling to hear that Corbett's taxpayer funded security detail attempted to remove the questioner:

"I went there as a private citizen to ask a legitimate question as well as others but I could only ask the one before I was directed to leave. Tom’s state paid body guard/chauffeur the black guy [in the picture] tried to move me out but I would not budge. He actually tried to push me out but when he touched me he could not budge me so I stood there peacefully then he walked to the side when Tom came over to me. You will notice Tom also tried to usher me out with his hand on my left arm."

Taxpayer funded security is there to protect Corbett from physical harm, not harm to his campaign.

It is interesting to note that in public Corbett is adamant that there is no federal investigation...period. Yet in an unprecedented (Corbett has only been deposed once in his long legal career) six hour deposition, he isn't quite as vehement:

Attorney for Kimmett: Mr. Corbett, were you ever, did you ever learn sometime in or after June of 2008 that Mr. Kimmett had approached the US Attorney’s Office with what he felt were systemic problems in FES [Financial Enforcement Section]?

Corbett: I learned, I think there was a question in the interrogatories to that effect. Is that right?

Attorney for Kimmett: I’m not sure there is.

Corbett: Somewhere along the line in preparation I’ve heard that.

Attorney for Kimmett: Okay.

Corbett: Did I hear about it in 2008? No.

Attorney for Corbett: When you say in preparation, you mean

Corbett: For today.

Attorney for Corbett: For your deposition.

Attorney for Kimmett: Do you know if at any point you or anyone in OAG has been contacted by anyone at the FBI relating to allegations or complaints made by Mr. Kimmett?

Corbett: To my knowledge nobody in the office has been contacted by FBI to my knowledge and I certainly haven’t.

Attorney for Kimmett: Have you ever had occasion to work with in any capacity an FBI agent named Timothy Lynch?

Corbett: I’m sorry?

Attorney for Kimmett: Timothy Lynch.

Corbett: Not that I know of. Okay.

(Pages 232-234, Corbett Deposition 3/11/10)

Something is amiss at the FES. Something serious enough to warrant Corbett being forced to spend six hours being deposed. Something serious enough that the FBI and an agent Timothy Lynch are asking questions.

Corbett not only doesn't want to talk about it, he doesn't even want questions asked. It is disturbing to learn Corbett has enlisted his taxpayer funded security guard to shut down the debate.